Bombay High Court
SUNITA BALU RATHODversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner failed to prove ordinary residence in Maharashtra before the statutory cut‑off date and, having approached the Court with unclean hands, her petition was dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, a member of the Laman community classified as VJNT, sought validation of her 2003 caste certificate, claiming ordinary residence in Ratnagiri district before the statutory cut‑off date of 21‑Nov‑1961. The Caste Scrutiny Committee rejected her claim, citing discrepancies between the landlord’s oral testimony and documentary evidence such as the father’s birth certificate and a 2013 residence certificate. The petitioner argued that the Committee ignored favorable vigilance reports and a cousin’s caste certificate, and contended that she was entitled to interim relief. The State argued that the petitioner suppressed a letter alleging fraud in the cousin’s certificate and that her evidence was unreliable. The Court found that the petitioner failed to prove residence prior to the cut‑off date, that the Committee’s findings were sound, and that the petitioner approached the Court with unclean hands, consequently dismissing the petition and refusing interim relief.
Issues considered
- Did the petitioner establish ordinary residence in Maharashtra before the cut‑off date of 21‑Nov‑1961 for the purpose of caste certificate validity?
- Was the Caste Scrutiny Committee's rejection of the petitioner's caste certificate based on proper application of the Caste Certificate Rules and evidentiary standards?
- Does the alleged suppression of a letter alleging fraud in a relative's caste certificate bar the petitioner from relief?
- Can interim relief granted in 2017 continue after the petition is dismissed?
Subjects
- caste certificate
- VJNT
- ordinary residence
- cut‑off date
- suppression of evidence
- interim relief
- Maharashtra
- Nomadic Tribe
Judgment
20-WP-2819-2017 (C)F.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2819 OF 2017
Sunita Balu Rathod,
Aged 29 years,
Residing at Ainvali, Post Mohone,
Tal. Khed, Dist. Ratnagiri. …...Petitioner
--Vs.--
1. State Of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Social Justice Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.
2. District-wise Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee through
its Member Secretary, having its office
at Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Samajik
Nyay Bhavan, Kuvarbav, Opposite
Power House, Ratnagiri, Dist. Ratnagiri.
3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue),
Dapoli Sub Division, Dapoli,
District Ratnagiri.
4. Zilla Parishad, Ratnagiri,
through its Chief Executive Officer,
Dist. Ratnagiri. …...Respondents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Ramchandra K. Mendadkar, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. A. I. Patel, Addl.G.P. for Respondents/State.
Mr. Prashant D. Daingade, Law Officer, Caste Scrutiny Committee,
Ratnagiri.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ranjana 1/15
20-WP-2819-2017 (C)F.doc
CORAM : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI,
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
DATED : 27th JULY 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER - SANDESH D. PATIL, J)
1. By the present Writ Petition, the petitioner is challenging the
judgment and order dated 31.01.2017 passed by the Respondent
No.2 – Committee. The further directions to the Respondent No.2 –
Committee to issue Certificate of Validity in respect of Caste
Certificate dated 05.03.2003 issued by the Respondent No.3 –
Competent Authority.
2. A case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner is belonging to
the caste ‘Laman’ which is recognized as VJNT in the State of
Maharashtra. The father of the petitioner was born in village Furus,
Taluka Khed, District Ratnagiri on 07.08.1957. However, because of
wandering nature of the tribe and widespread ignorance and
illiteracy, his birth was not recorded. It is her case that the petitioner
was born in the village Shiv Budruk, Taluka Khed, District Ratnagiri
on 05.06.1986 which is evident from School Leaving Certificate. She
had relied upon the School Leaving Certificate dated 05.06.1986.
Ranjana 2/15
20-WP-2819-2017 (C)F.doc
The petitioner further stated that she was issued Caste Certificate by
the Respondent No.3 on 05.03.2003. It is the contention of the
petitioner that she joined the services of Zilla Parishad with effect
from 19.07.2013. At that time, the Caste Certificate was referred to
Respondent No.2 – Committee for verification on 19.10.2013 by the
said Respondent No.4. Thereafter, the Vigilance Cell attached to the
Respondent No.2 – Committee, has caused home enquiry, the
Enquiry Officer of the Vigilance Cell followed the mandate of Caste
Certificate Rules and recorded statement of elderly and responsible
persons of village Furus, Taluka Khed, District Ratnagiri. Ultimately,
the enquiry report was submitted on 24.11.2014. The Respondent
No.2- Committee issued show cause notice to the petitioner on
14.05.2015 stating that the petitioner has not submitted
documentary evidence prior to 21.11.1961 (the cut-off date) and the
report of vigilance cell clearly shows that family of the petitioner is
from the State of Karnataka. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a reply
to the said Vigilance Cell Report. The petitioner was heard in the
matter.
Ranjana 3/15
20-WP-2819-2017 (C)F.doc
3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Writ Petition bearing No.1120 of
2016 in this Court challenging the order dated 22.12.2015 passed by
the Respondent No.2 - Committee. During the pendency of the said
petition, one witness namely Sahadeo Bapu Pawar in whose house
the grandfather of the petitioner was allegedly residing stated that
the said family was the tenant since 1954. This Court, after hearing
all the sides, had passed an order thereby remanding the matter back
to the Committee once again. It is on the basis of this order of
remand passed by the High Court in Writ Petition bearing No.1120 of
2016, the impugned order was passed.
4. Mr. Mendadkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner stated that, the petitioner belongs to caste ‘Laman’, which
is recognized as ‘Nomadic Tribe’. It is contended by Mr. Mendadkar
that they were migrant and they hardly had any documents because
their family was illiterate. He stated that the cut-off date was
21.11.1961 and that the landlord of the petitioner was examined by
the Committee. The same landlord was before the High Court while
deciding Writ Petition No.1120 of 2016. He placed much stress upon
the order dated 16.12.2016 passed by this Court in Writ Petition
Ranjana 4/15
20-WP-2819-2017 (C)F.doc
No.1120 of 2016 to contend that the Court had taken a view that
there is no dispute that the family of the petitioner was resident of
State of Maharashtra before the cut-off date. He stated that in the
light of this, the Committee should have validated the caste claim of
the petitioner. He further stated that the landlord was examined in
detailed by the Committee after the order of remand passed in Writ
Petition No.1120 of 2016. He stated that after the examination of the
said landlord, he had given correct answers thereby indicating that
the family of the petitioner was residing at village Furus, Taluka
Khed, District Ratnagiri since 1954. He thereafter, has pointed out
that there was a Vigilance Report dated 24.11.2014, and stated that
the Vigilance Report is in favour of the petitioner. He stated that the
word ‘ordinarily resides’ is important and that the word ‘permanent
resident’ does not have much place while deciding the issue of
validity. He relied upon Rule 5 of the Caste Certificate Rules to argue
that it was Khed where the petitioner was ordinarily residing and
that only by mentioning the permanent place of residence as Vijapur
could not take away the case which was put up by the petitioner. He
stated that the order passed by the authority is totally bad in law
contrary to the settled principles of law and various judgments which
Ranjana 5/15
20-WP-2819-2017 (C)F.doc
are on this issue.
5. He invited our attention to one certificate which is issued in
favour of one of the cousin aunt of the petitioner namely Shanta
Lalsingh Rathod. This certificate was brought on record by the
petitioner by filing an additional affidavit dated 14.11.2024. This
certificate was issued on 13.06.2008. Learned Counsel Mr.
Mendadkar submitted that although the certificate was issued in
2008, however, it could not be produced before this Court and he has
not relied upon the said certificate.
6. The learned Addl.G.P. at the outset drew our attention to one
letter written by the petitioner to the Committee. In the said letter
dated 03.11.2022, the petitioner had contended that the said
certificate which was obtained by her paternal aunt namely Shanta
Lalsingh Rathod, was obtained by misrepresentation and fraud and
therefore, that certificate should be set aside. The learned Addl.G.P.
states that on this ground itself the said certificate which is annexed
by the petitioner to this additional affidavit should not be relied
upon. The said letter dated 03.11.2022 which was a original copy,
was tendered before us and same was taken on record and the
Ranjana 6/15
20-WP-2819-2017 (C)F.doc
original was returned back to the learned Addl.G.P. by keeping the
photo copy of the same on record. The said document was put up
before the petitioner, who was present in the Court. She did not deny
this letter dated 03.11.2022.
7. The learned Addl.G.P. stated that the letter dated 03.11.2022
was suppressed by the petitioner and only on this ground the petition
deserves to be dismissed. He relied upon the judgment in the matter
of Dalip Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2010) 2
SCC 114 in order to contend that fraud vitiates proceedings and only
on this ground this petition should be dismissed.
8. The learned Addl.G.P. further relied upon the documents on
basis of which is the impugned order. He stated that the order was
correctly passed. He stated that the said application which was made
by the petitioner was interestingly not annexed to the petition and,
therefore, the learned Addl.G.P. has tendered the same on record.
The same is also taken on record.
9. The learned Addl.G.P. stated that the entire case of the
petitioner is based only upon the affidavit of Sahadeo Bapu Pawar
Ranjana 7/15
20-WP-2819-2017 (C)F.doc
and that the petitioner has not relied upon any documents neither
her own School Leaving Certificate nor the Death Certificate of her
grand parent. The Birth Certificate of the Petitioner’s father is relied
on. That Birth Certificate was issued in the year 2013 i.e. during
pendency of the proceedings before the Court. The learned Addl. G.P.
stated that the said Birth Certificate should not be taken on record.
The learned Addl.G.P. has taken us through the entire impugned
order where the analysis is made as to why the authority below has
decided not to give any credit to the evidence of Sahadeo Bapu
Pawar.
10. He stated that the entire evidence of Sahadeo Bapu Pawar
would not stand to test in the light of the documents submitted by
the petitioner themselves. In the petition, the petitioner has
submitted that the birth place of the parents was Ainavali, whereas
Sahadeo Bapu Pawar states that the birth place of her parent i.e. her
father is of another place. He stated that in the light of the aforesaid
documents produced on record by the petitioner themselves, the
statement of Sahadeo Bapu Pawar, cannot be relied. He relied upon
the judgment dated 11.06.2026 delivered by this Court in the matter
Ranjana 8/15
20-WP-2819-2017 (C)F.doc
of Shri Annasaheb Rajaram Matiwadar Vs. District Caste Scrutiny
Committee, Ratnagiri and Anr. [Writ Petition Stamp
No.93705/2020], wherein one of us (Mrs. Vrushali V. Joshi, J.) was a
member. He stated that the entire case of the petitioner is upon
misrepresentation and only on the basis of the oral evidence of
Sahadeo Bapu Pawar, it deserves to be discarded.
11. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides.
Perused the documents on record.
12. At the outset, we must mention that the petitioner has filed an
additional affidavit on page No.128 of the petition wherein it is
stated that there was a dispute in their family and, therefore, the
certificate of cousin aunt from paternal side namely Shanta Rathod
could not be handed over. She has produced that certificate dated
13.06.2008 at Exhibit- A to the said additional affidavit. We have
also perused the copy of the letter written by the petitioner to the
Respondent on 03.11.2022 where she has made a categorical
reference that the certificate is obtain by misrepresentation and that
certificate should be cancelled. Interestingly, this letter is issued on
03.11.2022 during the pendency of the present Writ Petition. It was
Ranjana 9/15
20-WP-2819-2017 (C)F.doc
for the petitioner to point out this important aspect to this Court. The
petitioner has however chosen not to point out this aspect to the
Court, on the contrary, today also during the argument, the learned
Counsel Mr. Mendadkar had referred to this certificate and he
vehemently argued that this certificate should be taken into
consideration and the matter should be remanded. Before we
proceed to the other aspect, another important aspect is that in the
application which the petitioner had preferred before the Caste
Scrutiny Committee (which is not annexed by the petitioner) she has
stated in column No.17 that her aunt Shanta Lalsingh Rathod
(the certificate which she is relying upon) had obtained the
certificate. If this is so, it was incorrectly stated in the additional
affidavit that the certificate was not produced because the petitioner
and her aunt were not in talking terms. That apart, the very fact
that the petitioner has deliberately not brought to the attention of
this Court the letter dated 03.11.2022 seems to be an act of
suppression of important document from the Court. This is a case
where such litigants who approach the Court with tainted hands
should be dealt with by taking a strict view. We are fortified in our
view by relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of
Ranjana 10/15
20-WP-2819-2017 (C)F.doc
Dalip Singh (supra). Para Nos. 1 and 2 of the said judgment reads as
under :
“1. For many centuries Indian society cherished two
basic values of life i.e. `Satya' (truth) and `ahimsa' (non-
violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi
guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life.
Truth constituted an integral part of justice-delivery system
which was in vogue in the pre-Independence era and the
people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts
irrespective of the consequences. However, post-
Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value
system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos
and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that
those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of
falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the
court proceedings.
2. In last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has
cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have
any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood
and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to
meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the
courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is
now well established that a litigant, who attempts to
pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure
fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any
relief, interim or final.”
13. For these reasons, we are not inclined to rely upon the
certificate issued to the cousin aunt from parental side of the
petitioner namely Shanta Lalsingh Rathod.
Ranjana 11/15
20-WP-2819-2017 (C)F.doc
14. As far as the only evidence which is led from the side of the
petitioner is the statement of the alleged landlord Sahadeo Pawar.
The statement of the witness was recorded before the Caste Scrutiny
Committee. This witness stated that he was residing at Village Furus,
Taluka Khed, District Ratnagiri and that the father of the petitioner
namely Balu Nimbaji Rathod was born in 1967 in his house. This in
nutshell is the case of said witness Sahadeo Bapu Pawar. The
evidence of the said witness shows that the petitioner was born in his
house. It is interesting to note that except the oral statement of this
person no other evidence is produced by the petitioner. The Caste
Scrutiny Committee has examined the statement of the witness and
for the reasons mentioned in the impugned judgment and order
decided to disbelieve the said witness. The said statement is totally
contrary to the certificate dated 28.11.2013, certifying that the father
of the petitioner was born at village Ainavali and not at Village
Furus. Thus, this is a major discrepancy in the statement of the said
witness. Apart from this oral evidence, nothing was brought before
the authority as to test veracity and correctness of this witness. The
Caste Scrutiny Committee correctly held that the statement of
witness Sahadeo Pawar given to the Vigilance Committee and the
Ranjana 12/15
20-WP-2819-2017 (C)F.doc
Birth Certificate issued to the father of the petitioner are contrary.
The Committee correctly held that if the petitioner was born in
Village Furus then at least the Birth Certificate of the said witness
should have been on record. The Committee correctly considered
the fact that even the Birth Certificate of the father is not on record
and what is brought on record is the Certificate of year 2013. The
learned Authority also correctly considered that the death certificate
of the grand father of the petitioner is also not on record. All these
reasons cumulatively led the Caste Scrutiny Committee to come to
the conclusion that the case of the petitioner was not believable and
has rightly rejected the same. This Court in the matter of Shri
Annasaheb Matiwadar (supra) has after relying upon the judgment
of the Apex Court in the matter of Bir Singh Vs. Delhi Jal Board &
Ors. reported in (2018) 10 SCC 312 came to the conclusion that the
caste which are registered in a particular category in a particular
State may not be useful for the purpose of decision whether the same
caste belongs to the same category in the Migrant State.
15. Having considered the entire conspectus of the matter, having
considered the reasoning given by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and
Ranjana 13/15
20-WP-2819-2017 (C)F.doc
having considered the application which is given by the petitioner,
we are of the considered view that the petitioner has miserably failed
to prove her birth in village Furus, Taluka Khed, District Ratnagiri.
We are also fortified in our view by relying upon the report dated
24.11.2014 issued by the Vigilance Cell Committee where it is
specifically stated that the petitioner has not relied upon the birth
certificate or the School Leaving Certificate of herself.
16. We have already observed in the foregoing paras that the
petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands.
Resultantly, we are constrained to dismiss the petition.
17. At this stage, Mr. Mendadkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner
contended that there was an interim relief operating since 2017, the
same may be continued. Since we have observed that the petitioner
has not approached the Court with clean hand, we are not inclined to
extend ad interim relief after dismissal of the present proceedings..
18. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed.
Ranjana 14/15
20-WP-2819-2017 (C)F.doc
19. The Writ Petition No.2819 of 2017 is disposed of accordingly.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.)
Digitally
signed by
RAJU
RAJU DATTATRAYA
DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD
GAIKWAD Date:
2026.08.04
17:26:05
+0530
Ranjana 15/15
Checking your session…